Ergonomics

I realize that sometimes, especially as a girl, and especially as me, talking about my thoughts, feelings, and experiences can probably sound like complaining. However, something has been on my mind for a while now, and that is ergonomics.

I am short. Anyone who knows me knows that is probably an understatement. My own personal observation tells me that there are lots of girls my height in the world - but we don't get much shorter than this!

Anyway, I have recently become aware of a problem with my height functioning in the world at large. The problem has been there all my life, but only recently have I been able to diagnose the problem.

The problem is that my legs do not reach the floor. In almost any given standard chair, my legs kind of dangle a few inches above the floor. In high school, I would swing my legs gaily. In college I was able to hook my feet onto the bars beneath the chairs. But in the real world, these options are noticeably missing.

For all you tall people out there, let me just say that having feet that won't reach the floor is quite uncomfortable. It completely destroys posture, for one. During the work day I tend to resort to sitting in odd, and most likely unprofessional, positions. My favorite is to sit cross-legged at my desk.

Sometimes I end up finding an adjustable chair. This can be almost worse. Once the chair is adjusted so that my feet fit flat on the floor, my head reaches barely three feet above the ground. The desk, which is not adjustable, reaches to my sternum.

Now, in the spirit of not complaining, I admit that ergonomics is a tough field. Otherwise there wouldn't be an entire field of science devoted to studying how we work. On the other hand, if they have been able to create adjustable chairs, why can't they go the extra mile and create adjustable desks?

To that point, I would like to propose an alternative to all this adjusting. That is - standing. I am actually working at a client now that has a few high cubicles with barstool sized chairs. I don't know the purpose of these special cubicles, but I would like to see more options like them in the workplace. When I worked in a pharmacy, I rarely felt uncomfortable although I stood all day. Here are some advatages to standing:

• You burn more calories
• Your circulation is better, and so you are generally warmer (for all us ladies who freeze in the office)
• You are more likely to "go" do something - when I am sitting and comfortable and bundled up, I rarely want to get up and go do, well, my job. But if I were standing, coming and going could be a normal business. Indeed, when standing, walking helps to take some of the pressure off the knees
• To the point - in my experience at least, standing desks offer a much more universal view of the world. Taller people have longer arms to reach down, and shorter people are closer to the desk to begin with. This results in practically everyone achieving the right angle to the keyboard (elbows a few inches above), and posture is better. Sure, feet and knees will have to get used to the situation, but in a few weeks, you will probably experience a healthier, happier, you!

I would like to see some willing company take up my proposal. I suggest they allow workers to choose between tall, standing desks and the traditional cube. They should run the trial for a few months and see which group of employees has a higher job satisfaction, is healthier, and is most productive. I would truly be interested in the results of the experiment.

Until then, I suppose I'll just continue to practice my chair calisthenics.

Revolutionary Thoughts

I have been thinking revolting thoughts. Well, revolutionary thoughts actually. I’ve been thinking about countries that have been trying their hand at democracy, but it’s just not catching on. Ever since the French and American revolutions, there have been a string of revolutions across the globe. Some of these have been peaceful. More often than not, they have not. How is it that some revolutions have successfully instituted democracy in their nations, while other countries still struggle with the concept of a free and peaceful election? And when democracy fails, when is it appropriate to pursue democratic goals through violent means?

As for the first question, I believe the answer is difficult. Let’s look first at America. Although those against instituting a national language are quick to point out that only about 1/3 of the citizens of the original 13 colonies spoke English, the colonies did belong to the English, the founding fathers were wealthy English citizens. And despite their opposition to King George, they set up a government that reeked of Englishness. Why?

Because they knew what worked and what didn’t. The English monarchy had been losing its real power for 500 years, since the Magna Carta was signed. The Englishmen who established America had, for their example a government setup that had been working for centuries. All they had to do was tweak it to fit their own American style.

For the last 300 years the Western world has been touting Democracy to the rest of the world much in the same way that the missionaries pushed Christianity. One has come to be known as unacceptable, while the other is still acceptable and continues to be pushed. However, much as changing the religion of a different culture has implications, changing the political structure of an established country has implications that could potentially be destructive.

While I personally believe that democracy is the form of government that gives people the greatest freedoms and honors the rights of individuals, the transition may be long and hard. Consider that our present form of democracy in America was slowly developed for 500 years before placed in action by citizens who were already used a similar political setup.

Other cultures transition to democracy from different political systems. If a country was recently in a monarchy setup, then suspicion and violence would be the norm. Kings solidify their claim to rule by exterminating anyone who threatens their supremacy. If a country recently was ruled in this way, then whoever they elect, even in a democracy, may be prone to similar means to guarantee that they will be “elected” continually in the future.

In a monarchy, when the people get fed-up with the regime, they revolt and set in place a new regime. Certainly, if an election doesn’t go the way half the nation wants, then violence is anticipated. Our frustration with a world that is not at peace may be the result of trying to institute political systems that really should evolve at the natural pace of the culture.

This brings me to a second question – when is it appropriate to use violence to further political means?

When a regime is tyrannical and fails to recognize basic rights entitled to all people, and there is no other way to change the regime, then violence may be acceptable for the greater good. As an American, who gained my freedom due to those who came before me who were able to defend it, I cannot think otherwise.

However, where democracy is working smoothly, then social change can be brought about through non-violent means – writing our legislators, voting, and the courts. My favorite example of how to bring about change in a democracy is the civil rights movements – specifically Rosa Parks. We celebrate today how this amazing woman changed history by breaking a law that was unethical to begin with.

Another example – when cities outlaw Christmas caroling because it is potentially offensive, citizens may protect their right to freedom of speech by simply caroling.

However, other laws cannot be changed by breaking them. For instance, taxes. Although it was common in the early days of the income tax, we cannot just not pay taxes these days. They are already taken out of our paychecks. However, we can change the tax code by voting for our leaders, by sending letters to those already in power, and perhaps by using the courts to protest tax laws.

Sometimes I get frustrated that these methods move too slowly. However, that’s the beauty of our system. As long as regular elections are held, the power remains with the people. Violence is not necessary. As much as I dislike certain laws, I must accept the fact that the laws were put in place by people that my fellow countrymen elected. Therefore, any issues I have with the government must be settled within the means the government put in place so that we the people can govern ourselves.

Duck Soup

I can no longer keep my silence about what I have been up to these last few months. Comedy. It is comedy. There are two new forms of comedy in my life that I have been taking part in these last few weeks.

The first is the TV show, "The Big Bang Theory." I could go on more about that, but let's just put it this way - I was, and always shall be, a nerd. This show throws me back to my high school days. I get jokes I never should get. And it makes me think, "Why does the world have a certain standard about how we should behave and what should interest us?" I wish there were more nerds in my life.

But the other comedy I have been viewing is the Marx Brothers. I will not lie, I had never had any interest in the Marx brothers for my first 24 years. First of all, I got Groucho Marx confused with Karl Marx, and I'm no communist. But also, like many things, nothing had ever caused me to question a world without Marx brothers.

In late April I worked a 32-hour day. I kid you not - I went to work at 11:00 am on Sunday and didn't go home until 8:00 PM the next day (with the exception of a two-hour nap). That Thursday mornign I flew home and, as I was getting ready for a good, long needed, nap, I opened up "Duck Soup" on Netflix.

I guess I also opened up a can of worms. The comedy of the Marx brothers was something that I was not prepared for. I suppose I compare it to a 1930's Monty Python...a movie where little comedy skits were loosely strung together with a "plot." It was adorable. I became an instant fan!

After my first Marx movie, I had decided that my all time favorite brother was Chico. From later research, I learned that Chico was the oldest of the performing brothers (there were six, but really only the three became famous). He also had a gambling problem in real life. For our younger generation fans, his character was that of an Italian immigrant who struggled with words. His plays on words were quaint and yet still amusing in the movie setting. As the Brothers started as a vaudeville act, Chico would perform on the piano in many movies. As a pianist myself, I wish I could play a few of his songs!

A close second was Harpo. I had long known Harpo from an "I Love Lucy" episode. The episode I had always found funny, however I had never really fallen in love with the Harpo character. However, after three Marx movies, I now see why he seems to be one of the favorites among those who know the brothers.

Bulging eyes, a curly wig, and an outfit that looks like a hobo. Harpo Marx never spoke in film. Early in his career he learned to pantomime his lines because he had difficulty delivering them. Harpo also chases women around and plays, you guessed it, the harp. In his personal life, he married late and adopted four children. He was always very happy.

Groucho Marx is perhaps the postor boy for the brothers. He is the youngest of the famous three and also the first to get started in show business. In my first encounter with Groucho, I wasn't impressed. To be honest, his oversized grease-pencil mustache almost made me sick. He appeared in the movie delivering lines that made no sense - it was a strange mix of jokes that came one after another, too fast to really understand.

However, since then Groucho has become a favorite for me. His sense of humor is much like my own. I find that is why I have trouble getting people to laugh at my jokes - my style is from the 1930's. Groucho is the voice and character of the team. He was the one who carried on in show business long after the brothers stopped performing together in public. I have come to love his fiendish eyebrow wiggles and 1930's style innuendo, his way of being insulting and loveable at the same time.

Apparently Groucho was also loveable off the screen. He was a simple man who wanted to be a good father to his children and stay at home. However, he had a tendency to marry alchoholics, and spent three marriages in this way. This inevitably led to a more depressing home life than perhaps he deserved.

However, I think one of the greatest appeals of the Marx brothers is the very fact that they are brothers. (There were six in all - one died, two others left show business as Groucho, Harpo, and Chico developed stronger characters). I imagine growing up for them was a fun experience - even if they were poor. They learned to entertain - to play instruments.

In their movies I see four (or three) brothers who have fun together. They work, they enjoy each other's company, and they goof off...how much better can life get? I can tell this is a comedy team that thrives on improv. Although I've never had a brother, I cannot imagine a more fulfilling day than going to work and giving your brother a hard time all day. Every scene I watch screams "brothers!" to me. And this makes the movies all the more enjoyable.